Similar Posts

5 Comments

  1. They can start by taking their bullshit ads off the TV. Someone should make an advert following a pensioner or unemployed person to a supermarket to try to buy (afford) their overpriced products. I have seen 500gm of butter for $9.48 in a small town 4Square. Oh. and then there’s the water we can no longer stand in!

  2. Yes I heard the new advertisements on the radio saying they
    (the farmers) are opening their gates to the public so people can see what they are doing to address the problem and they will have information on line showing some of the interventions to reduce the nitrate leaching into the waterways. Interesting how one group has managed to get away with some much environmental devastation.

  3. The talk – now we wait for the walk.

    Irrigation must be curbed and wound down in many/ most catchments.

    The talk has to be about undoing what is done not merely slowing the rate of intensification.

    Economics are not a consideration.

    If were ever a consideration then more homework would have been done before damaging practices were allowed and included mitigation and restoration.

    It is plainly not economic to damage the environment.

    Claims of economic necessity I hear do not mention the economic cost of cleaning up or loss of biodiversity, habitat loss nor denial of public enjoyment, toxifying and loosing soils which have taken many centuries to form.

    Plainly Investment for monetary gain must not trump environment.

    Recovering cost from the agencies who have responsibility for the present mess would be a start.

    That money could be used by Govt to fund a massive task force attending to restoring damaged environment.

    A few bankruptcies may transmit a message.

    Feriliser companies have large global resources.

  4. I received a letter from the Waimakariri District Council offering me a chance to connect to a water scheme taking water from a deep well and costing me something like 10,000 to join and 1300 on my rates yearly. One reason is that the aquifer that was quite suitable when I bought the block 15 years ago is threatened by drawn down and nitrogen contamination. When I bought the block I had the water tested and put in a good pump for my domestic use, not irrigation. So now I could be forced to spend a lot of money I don’t have due to pollution cause by ECAN and WDC allowing, and in fact encouraging, land use (dairying) that is unsuitable and unsustainable for the light Canterbury soil involved. But Fonterrra is not offering to pay for the cost they have created for all of us in the area, but the council will charge even thought they could have regulated the farming activities to avoid this pollution of our water

    1. This is why ECAN got sacked so they could intensify irrigation and dairying now canterbury is paying the price.

Comments are closed.